4.5. Circulation of Labour

Another significant change in rural society that is linked to the commercialisation of agriculture has been the growth of migrant agricultural labour. As ‘traditional’ bonds of patronage between labourers or tenants and landlords broke down, and as the seasonal demand for agricultural labour increased in prosperous Green Revolution regions such as the Punjab, a pattern of seasonal migration emerged in which thousands of workers circulate between their home villages and more prosperous areas where there is more demand for labour and higher wages.

The introduction of commercial agriculture has led to changes in how agricultural labor is organized. Traditional relationships where landowners supported their laborers have weakened. Instead of a stable workforce, farmers now hire laborers based on seasonal needs, leading to many workers migrating from their villages to regions with higher labor demands, like Punjab. This seasonal migration signifies that labor is no longer fixed but circulates, reflecting economic pressures and opportunities.

Imagine a worker who lives in a small village where job opportunities are limited. During harvest season, he travels to Punjab, where farmers require extra help to gather crops. After the season ends, he returns home to wait for the next opportunity. This cycle illustrates how laborers seek better wages and job security by moving to areas where work is more abundant.

Labourers migrate also due to the increasing inequalities in rural areas from the mid-1990s, which have forced many households to combine multiple occupations to sustain themselves. As a livelihood strategy, men migrate out periodically in search of work and better wages, while women and children are often left behind in their villages with elderly grandparents.

Economic inequalities in rural communities have risen, compelling families to adopt multiple income sources to survive. Many men leave their homes to find better-paying jobs in cities or prosperous agricultural regions. This often results in women and children remaining in the villages, managing the household and agricultural tasks, while the men continue the cycle of migration in pursuit of improved economic conditions.

Think of a family where the father travels to a nearby city to work as a construction laborer to earn enough to support his wife and children back home. While he works away, his wife takes over the farming chores with the children, ensuring that their household remains stable even when a key income earner is absent.

Migrant workers come mainly from drought-prone and less productive regions, and they go to work for part of the year on farms in Punjab and Haryana, or on brick kilns in U.P., or construction sites in cities such as New Delhi or Bangalore.

The migration patterns of laborers show a distinct trend: those who migrate typically originate from areas that lack sufficient agricultural productivity, often due to drought or poor soil quality. As a result, they seek opportunities in more fertile and prosperous regions like Punjab and Haryana or urban centers where jobs are available, such as construction sites. This seasonal movement is driven by the need to find work while making efficient use of potential income opportunities.

Consider a farmer from a dry region struggling to grow enough food to feed his family. To earn a better living, he moves to Punjab during the harvest season to work on a farm, taking advantage of the fertile land there. After the season ends, he returns home to care for his own small piece of land, reflecting a crucial strategy for survival against environmental challenges.

These migrant workers have been termed ‘footloose labour’ by Jan Breman, but this does not imply freedom. Breman’s (1985) study shows, to the contrary, that landless workers do not have many rights, for instance, they are usually not paid the minimum wage. It should be noted here that wealthy farmers often prefer to employ migrant workers for harvesting and other such intensive operations, rather than the local working class, because migrants are more easily exploited and can be paid lower wages.

Despite the term 'footloose labour' suggesting flexibility, migrant laborers often experience limited rights and are vulnerable to exploitation. Many do not receive fair wages, including minimum wage. Wealthier farmers often choose to hire these migrants instead of local workers because they can pay them less and are not bound by the same local support systems. This dynamic demonstrates the economic pressures that thrive on the exploitation of labor.

Imagine a wealthy farmer who hires workers from out of town for harvesting. These workers, eager for any income, agree to lower pay. Meanwhile, local individuals, who might demand higher wages or have the support of their community, are overlooked. This scenario highlights the inequality and harsh competition faced by those in desperate situations.

The large scale circulation of labour has had several significant effects on rural society, in both the receiving and the supplying regions. For instance, in poor areas where male family members spend much of the year working outside of their villages, cultivation has become primarily a female task. Women are also emerging as the main source of agricultural labour, leading to the ‘feminisation of agricultural labour force.’

As more men migrate to find work, women are taking over the agricultural responsibilities left behind. This phenomena, known as the 'feminisation of agriculture', leads to women becoming the primary agricultural labor force in their communities. This shift impacts not only the division of labor but also the social dynamics and status of women within the rural setting.

Picture a village where most men have left to work in the cities while their wives manage both the household and farm. These women not only plant and harvest crops but also handle finances and decision-making for the farm. Over time, this change empowers women, leading to a shift in traditional gender roles in the community.

The insecurity of women is greater because they earn lower wages than men for similar work. Until recently, women were hardly visible in official statistics as earners and workers. While women toil on the land as landless labourers and as cultivators, the prevailing patrilineal kinship system, and other cultural practices that privilege male rights, largely exclude women from land ownership.

Women laborers face significant challenges, including earning less than their male counterparts while performing the same work. Additionally, cultural and social structures often sideline them in terms of land ownership and recognition as formal laborers. This exclusion further entrenches their economic vulnerability and limits their empowerment, reinforcing traditional gender inequalities.

Think of a woman working in the fields alongside her husband, plowing, sowing, and harvesting but receiving less pay for her efforts. Even though she helps manage the land, she cannot claim ownership due to societal norms, making her financial future uncertain and dependent on her husband’s circumstances.

--